Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 505 of 2019 Revisionist :- Dilshad Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
(On C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019) Heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is good and sufficient.
Application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.
(On Criminal Revision) The instant revision has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 22 February 2019 passed by Family/Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Second, Jaunpur, in Case No. 1029 of 2015 (Naziya Begum and another versus Dilshad Ahmad), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Madiyahun, District Jaunpur, whereby, the claim of the opposite party no. 2 (wife) for maintenance has been rejected, whereas, the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 3000/- per month in respect of opposite party no. 3 (son) payable to the opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the revisionist does not dispute that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife, whereas, opposite party no. 3 is a minor son. The court below has rejected the maintenance claimed by the wife as a finding has been returned that she is gainfully employed, whereas, the maintenance has been allowed in respect of the minor son who according to the revisionist is aged about eight years. It is urged that the revisionist is unemployed and is unable to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as directed by the court below.
Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to show any authority/precedent that in case the person is unemployed or unable to earn is not entitled to maintain his son. It is not the case of the revisionist that he is not able bodied to work and earn for himself or his family, in particular, his son.
On specific query, learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.6.2019 K.K. Maurya